You are here:

ABN Reviewer Guidelines

Abstract Reviewer Guidelines

Scoring Anchors for Annual Meeting

Grade your abstracts between 1 (poor) and 5 (excellent) as per the guidelines below.


1- Erroneous or poorly described; do not think should be included.
2- Not very interesting; well recognised or a ‘surprise’ only in the light initial misdiagnosis.
3- Reasonable case; uncommon common presentation or unusual.
4- Interesting; I learnt something useful.
5- Exceptional case; major learning point with potential to change practice (with emphasis on the treatable). Could be published.


1- Poorly designed or very small sample size.
2- Not very interesting; duplicates previous audits.
3- Reasonable audit. Some useful learning points. Would be of some interest.
4- Good quality, well designed audit. Would be of general interest and could be
replicated in other units.
5- Exceptional audit. Could be National audit, or of high quality design that should
serve as template for general use. Could be published in Practical Neurology.

Clinical & Basic Science

1- No data presented (“will be described” not acceptable); major flaw in methodology.
2- Not very interesting; duplicates previous studies, or mundane / data dredging from other work.
3- Reasonable scientific study; well conducted; incremental addition to knowledge base.
4- Interesting result; adds significantly to knowledge base.
5- Exceptional study; has major translational potential or (in the case of clinical scientific study) has potential to change practice. Potential publication.